Long, long ago the British named most of the worlds islands and made the maps. it was part of their gift to the world.

Prior tho that the Spanish and Portuguese. Prior to that, in Asia, the Chines named all the islands. Don't believe that everyone in the world falls for the British version of place names, laws, history and maps.

Not many new names from the UAE, Unexceptional American Empire though.

The thing about culturally-centered historiography and historic perspective is that it tends to be extreme, narrowly unkempt and disassociates from reality.

It's a wonder why anyone has any knowledge of real world history, as most don't. The same old subjective and conditioned dumbing down cycles play a major part in one's reasoned logic and thought process.

China as a country is x million sq Km, so 2,000 acres is but a drip on a water fall. However Vietnam a much smaller country has reclaimed how many acres?

Originally Posted by Looper

He said the United States was "deeply concerned" about the scale of China's land reclamation and the prospect of further militarization

Look at their own actions and remedy them, prior to accusing others. Glass houses .......

Originally Posted by Looper

China and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to adopt a "code of conduct" in the disputed waters this year.

Many ASEAN members have very cordial relations with China. Some of course, the Ameristan vassals, will always provide a few Asian citizens to voice disapproval. If the bribe is big enough. Is Ameristan running out of money?

"US president Barack Obama used a quick stop in the Philippines to chat with President Benigno Aquino about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Aquino says his Asian nation would love to be part of it, but the Philippine constitution stands in his way.

Obama welcomed their interest in the controversial agreement, which has been the subject of protests around the world, including the Philippine capital of Manila. Proponents of the TPP have argued that if the Philippines did not join the trade pact, it could lose its share of the US market.

The Philippine Constitution protects national independence and resources. Foreigners are barred from owning land, or own more than 40 percent of businesses, and they cannot exploit natural resources.

These protections are not aligned with the TPP’s aim to open new markets, get rid of trade barriers between member nations, and limit national sovereignty.

Last year, however, the Aquino government removed the restrictions on foreign banks, allowing them to own 100 percent of Philippine banks, as opposed to just 60 percent."

Originally Posted by Looper

"If we leave any unlawful situation unattended, order will soon turn to disorde

Ameristan, only taking lawful actions.

Originally Posted by Looper

Rich in resources and traversed by a quarter of global shipping

Where does all that Asian shipping originate or end? Who wants to ensure that the shipping continues unmolested?

A radio recording of a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) surveillance plane conducting a freedom-of-navigation flight over the South China Sea has emerged for the first time.

The audio has been published by the BBC following a reporting assignment in the disputed Spratly archipelago.

In the scratchy radio recording, an RAAF pilot is heard speaking to the Chinese Navy.

"China Navy, China Navy," the voice says.
"We are an Australian aircraft exercising international freedom of navigation rights, in international airspace in accordance with the international civil aviation convention, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - over."

The BBC said it recorded the flight audio from a RAAF AP-3C Orion surveillance aircraft in the early afternoon on November 25.
According to the BBC, the message was repeated several times by the RAAF pilot, but no response was heard from the Chinese.

China claims most of the South China Sea— where more than $5 trillion of world trade passes through each year— in the face of rival claims from Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines and Taiwan.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang has said Beijing "resolutely opposes any country using freedom of navigation and overflight as a pretext for harming China's national sovereignty and security interests".

To date, the Federal Government has never publicly acknowledged that Australia has conducted a "freedom of navigation" exercise in the contested region.

The Department of Defence in Canberra confirmed the flight took place between November 25 and December 4.

"A Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion was conducting a routine maritime patrol in the region as part of Operation GATEWAY from 25 November to 4 December," it said.

"Under Operation Gateway, the Australian Defence Force conducts routine maritime surveillance patrols in the North Indian Ocean and South China Sea as a part of Australia's enduring contribution to the preservation of regional security and stability in South East Asia."
Flights 'not likely to affect relationship with China'

At least one China analyst says the Australian flight is not surprising, given recent discussion about freedom of navigation exercises with the United States.

"The attitude of Australia might be read by the Chinese Government as taking sides," said Hong Nong, the executive director of the Institute for China-America Studies, a Washington-based centre set up by a Chinese Government think tank.

"If Australia is sending a craft to test freedom of navigation, it will be read by China as: 'Are you really thinking that China has created trouble for freedom of navigation? If not, then why [conduct the flight] at this time?'."
But she does not believe such flights will affect the Australia-China relationship.

"The South China Sea will not play a major role in general relations. Between China and Australia we have other areas for a very positive, neutral relationship."

But China's Foreign Ministry has accused Australia of creating "troubles".
The Chinese side has made its solemn position clear on many occasions.
"I'd like to reiterate that the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is out of question," spokesman Hong Lei said.

"Countries outside the region should respect other countries' sovereignty instead of creating trouble."

In answer to a question about US concerns of a growing arms race in the region, Mr Hong also pointed the finger at Washington.

"Some countries have been playing up tensions in the South China Sea with the purpose of creating chaos, so as to get involved and interfere in China’s affairs in the South China Sea."

It's a wonder why anyone has any knowledge of real world history, as most don't. The same old subjective and conditioned dumbing down cycles play a major part in one's reasoned logic and thought process.

That's why we are so glad to have you aboard. Consider writting a book, you could make a fortune. Or you could loose apartment and PC.

'It would be shame if a plane fell from the sky': China's warning to RAAF over South China Sea flights

A Chinese state-owned newspaper has issued a strongly worded warning to Australia about a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) surveillance plane carrying out "freedom of navigation" exercises over the South China Sea.

The editorial in the Chinese language edition of The Global Times appears to warn Australia its planes could be shot down if such operations continue.

"China Navy, China Navy," the voice said.

"We are an Australian aircraft exercising international freedom of navigation rights, in international airspace in accordance with the international civil aviation convention, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."

The BBC said it recorded the message from a RAAF AP-3C Orion surveillance aircraft in the early afternoon on November 25.

According to the BBC, the message was repeated several times by the RAAF pilot, but no response was heard from the Chinese.

It would be a shame if one day a plane fell from the sky and it happened to be Australian.

The Global Times

The Global Times editorial, which was toned down in the English language version of the newspaper, said: "Australia should not count on being welcomed or accepted" when it is in air space around the disputed territories.

"The Chinese people cannot understand why the Australian military would get involved, and to be honest, they have less patience to prevent a flare up," the newspaper said.

"Australian military planes better not regularly come to the South China Sea to 'get involved' , and especially don't test China's patience by flying close to China's islands.

"Everyone has always been careful, but it would be a shame if one day a plane fell from the sky and it happened to be Australian."
'Freedom of navigation in South China Sea out of question'

The newspaper goes further to say China and Australia are "friendly nations" and should have a "friendly relationship," suggesting diplomacy between the two nations could sour if Australia continues the flights.

"It's impossible to set up a military alliance against China in the South China Sea," the newspaper said.

"China has not violated the core interests of those countries, they come to the South China Sea to 'play cards', for other strategic goals, and they're not really there to oppose China."

On Tuesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry voiced a more muted concern over the flight.

"The Chinese side has made its solemn position clear on many occasions," spokesman Hong Lei said.

"I'd like to reiterate that the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is out of the question.

"Countries outside the region should respect other countries' sovereignty instead of creating trouble."
'It's what we do, it's called Operation Gateway': Payne

But Defence Minister Marise Payne said China should not be surprised about the flights.

"It's actually not an assertion of freedom of navigation, it's what we do, it's called Operation Gateway and it's been underway since 1980," Senator Payne said.

"Perhaps the approach that the media take of a shock, horror revelation is one for them to take, not me."

Senator Payne argued such an operation was unlikely to provoke anger from the Chinese Government.

"I don't think the Chinese are at all surprised to know that Australia supports freedom of navigation, freedom of flight in accordance with the international law of the sea," Senator Payne said.

The Department of Defence in Canberra confirmed the flight took place between November 25 and December 4.

"A Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion was conducting a routine maritime patrol in the region as part of Operation Gateway from November 25 to December 4," it said.

"Under Operation Gateway, the Australian Defence Force conducts routine maritime surveillance patrols in the North Indian Ocean and South China Sea as a part of Australia's enduring contribution to the preservation of regional security and stability in South East Asia."

China claims most of the South China Sea — where more than $5 trillion of world trade passes through each year — in the face of rival claims from Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines and Taiwan.

China has accused the US of "serious provocation" after it flew B-52 bombers near one of the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
Chinese military personnel were put on "high alert" during the incident on 10 December, and issued warnings to leave.

The Pentagon said it was looking into the complaint.

China claims large swathes of the South China Sea but is in territorial dispute with a host of regional neighbours.

In October, China rebuked the US after a destroyer sailed close to a reef.

A report in the Wall St Journal said there were two B-52s on the mission and that one unintentionally flew within two nautical miles of Cuarteron Reef on the Spratly Islands, possibly due to bad weather.China said the flights "constitute a serious military provocation and are rendering more complex and even militarising conditions in the South China Sea".

It urged the US to take measures to prevent similar incidents.
The US has not taken sides on sovereignty issues in the area but has a "freedom of navigation" policy asserting right of passage for its military.
However, Pentagon spokesman Cmdr Bill Urban said the B-52 over-flight was not part of this policy, which analysts say might suggest a navigation error. Regional tension

"China's work on the [Spratly] islands mostly serves civil purposes apart from meeting the needs of military defence. China is aiming to provide shelter, aid in navigation, weather forecasts and fishery assistance to ships of various countries passing through the sea," a commentary carried prominently by Xinhua news agency on Thursday read.

What a load of crap. They're really pushy, and are expanding their realm.

But any map will show that it is past the point of the ridiculous....the Spratlys are way, way South, in line with Vietnam and the Philippines.

The Chinese claim is based on historic ownership, but then legal ownership is not acknowledged as sufficient these days just brute force.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

But any map will show that it is past the point of the ridiculous

Hawaii is "close" to it's current owner, is just one example, The USA, Canada, Australia are other countries "owned" by it's indigenous population? The countries "hosting" another countries military forces are such a small portion of the worlds "sovereign" countries?

You need to check out what Japan is intending to do with it's southern islands, called the First Islands. The islands agreed, by the victorious world powers, at the end of WW2 to be returned to China.

But hey keep blaming the Chinese for your own failures to grab even more land from vassal states.

When you get Russian or Chinese airplanes or ships flying or steaming within your own 12 mile limits you may be able to speak from a real position, until then Yankees go home may be a more peaceful solution. When the worlds policeman withdraws from the many counties they're currently installed in you may have a position, until then go home.

By what retarded stretch of your delirious imagination do you think that any civilised 21st century western nation would engage in such transparent 19th century land-grabbing and empire building nonsense as creating new islands a thousand miles away from their mainland yet less than 100 miles from Vietnam and closer to many other countries in the region and then try to claim that this entitles them to territorial claim?

You really do have your head banged so far up your arse that you can taste what you had for breakfast last Friday.

China is going to do what it wants, and if America, Britain or anyone else are stupid enough to start a nuclear war over it, then it will be a short century.

I don't see China as being any more evil than the USA, both want the oil under the South China Sea. The Philippines and its people are irrelevant bystanders in this, other than some corrupt American puppet politicians the people of that Country have nothing to gain from this dispute.

The book I suggested is a history book, produced by a certain countries academics with many contributors. The producers would have their own/socially aceepted prejudices, sure, but it is one of many.

Possibly information gleaned from a written source illuminates the reasons why and how a situation has been arrived at. I appreciate some believe if it, the information source, is not YUtub, shitter or their favourite news outlet it doesn't have credibility. If the information doesn't agree with an alternative source an individule judgement has to be made, but one can normally find a source which confirms their prejudices.

Countries don't get to 'do what they want' when they are just one member of a global community.

So "building" a group of "like minded" or possibly "incentivised" countries political leaders makes brute force legitimate?

Here is an example of the "intelligence" of the "global" community.
"Almost one-third of Republican primary voters would support bombing the fictional kingdom of Agrabah, according to a report released by Public Policy Polling on Friday.

More than 530 Republican primary voters were polled this week on their support for Republican candidates and foreign policy issues including banning Muslims from entering the US, Japanese internment camps from the second world war and bombing Agrabah, the kingdom from Disney’s animated classic, Aladdin.

In its poll, Public Policy Polling asked the 532 Republicans: “Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?” While 57% of responders said they were not sure, 30% said they supported bombing it. Only 13% opposed it."

Nobody except a rogue nation will ever start a nuclear war over anything.

Unfortunately it's more the continuous threatening backed up with nuclear armed military which determines outcomes in face to face actions. We also have the question as to who decides if a country is a "rogue" country.

Originally Posted by Looper

Britain used to control that stretch of water in the 19th century. Which bit of history do you want to go back to? There was no legal territorial claim. Building an air-force base by reclaiming land is an outrage. If any western country tried to pull this stunt they would be ostracised from the global community.

Well, one could take the last 5 years, the last century, the last millennium or today's trending tweet. I suggest to understand the history of countries is to gain an insight into their possible future actions by reviewing any information and historical context. As for "a legitimate claim" you need to accept what is a legitimate claim and review how countries have established a legitimate claim over territory. Historically through brute force or political, bribery, negotiations.

If you mean by "they would be ostracised" ,the current method is to adopt illegal sanctions sanctions, financial, personnel etc. against a particular country. You might want to investigate how many of the sanctioning countries continued to do business, historically, with the sanctioned country.

Or you don't see the evidence because you have your head up your arse.

An interesting article, ostensibly based on the Chinese and Amristani feud regarding who should prevail the ASEAN space. Many Thai references, due to the writer being Bangkok based one assumes.

Differences in approach and country management. He accuses the Ameristanis of at minimum "assisting" countries on which approach should be adopted when dealing with China. Either individually or as an ASEAN group. This progresses to "bribery and corruption" and onto "threats" of actual bodily harm, either physical, financial or militarily.

Comparing the types of agreements signed, historically and contemporary.